Nullification is a check on unconstutional federal laws

[Oddball]

Care to tell the class which Article and Section that prohibition against the people is located, Joke?

 

[George Costanza]

There's no "belief in the concept"...It's a legitimate point of American law and has been since the nation's founding.

Fully Informed Jury Association

It is NOT a "legitimate point of American law." Just the opposite. Judges go out of their way to make sure it does not happen. If they find that it did happen or is about to happen, a mistrial is declared. It is ILLEGAL for a juror to disregard his/her oath and render a verdict opposite to the facts of the case, merely because they might happen to disagree with the particular law of the case.

"Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict," is a correct statement - but that is not the concept that is the subject of this thread. The premise of this thread is that juries are legally entitled to refuse to convict if they don't like the LAW involved. Juries are not entitled to do this and they are breaking the law if they do.

Refusing to convict because of the way the police conducted their investigation or the way in which the prosecution proceeded is another matter entirely. Yes, in cases like this, juries are free to refuse to convict if they feel that "government tyranny" was involved.

The ability of juries to do this comes to us from the very beginnings of the jury system for, as some have said already and as your linked article points out, the whole purpose of juries originally was to stand between the accused and the state, since, at that time, the state was able to do whatever it wanted in the prosecution of criminal cases, with no check on it whatsoever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Care to tell the class which Article and Section that prohibition against the people is located, Joke?

That's what I thought. You can't rebut, so you scut. That's why you are a laughing stock to thinking folks, dude. This was settled long before we born, son. Silly guy!

 

[Oddball]

There's no "belief in the concept"...It's a legitimate point of American law and has been since the nation's founding.

Fully Informed Jury Association

It is NOT a "legitimate point of American law." Just the opposite. Judges go out of their way to make sure it does not happen. If they find that it did happen or is about to happen, a mistrial is declared. It is ILLEGAL for a juror to disregard his/her oath and render a verdict opposite to the facts of the case, merely because they might happen to disagree with the particular law of the case.

Like hell it's illegal.

If you had looked into the Kriho case as I suggested, you'd know that she was never ever charged with any wrongdoing insofar as her hanging of the jury on principle was concerned.

Refusing to convict on the basis that the laws are unjust is the last defense we the people have against an authoritarian judicial oligarchy run amok.

 

[Oddball]

Care to tell the class which Article and Section that prohibition against the people is located, Joke?

That's what I thought. You can't rebut, so you scut. That's why you are a laughing stock to thinking folks, dude. This was settled long before we born, son. Silly guy!

The onus of proof is on you, Buckwheat.....You made the assertion, now back it up.

Cite the constitutional Article and Section which declares jury nullification to be unlawful.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Long was a tyrant, plain and simple...From the same mold as the despotic crook Richard Daily...That they weren't as virulent and malignant as Hitler is irrelevant.

But I'm not the one here who is blinded by inconsequential regional and political party loyalties and biases, as you are.

You can't even back up your assertions with evidence.

I have your posts to show that you're a political party man hack...What more evidence does one need?

Just as I thought.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Care to tell the class which Article and Section that prohibition against the people is located, Joke?

The Supremacy Clause

 

[Dr Grump]

There's no "belief in the concept"...It's a legitimate point of American law and has been since the nation's founding.

Fully Informed Jury Association

It is NOT a "legitimate point of American law." Just the opposite. Judges go out of their way to make sure it does not happen. If they find that it did happen or is about to happen, a mistrial is declared. It is ILLEGAL for a juror to disregard his/her oath and render a verdict opposite to the facts of the case, merely because they might happen to disagree with the particular law of the case.

Like hell it's illegal.

If you had looked into the Kriho case as I suggested, you'd know that she was never ever charged with any wrongdoing insofar as her hanging of the jury on principle was concerned.

Refusing to convict on the basis that the laws are unjust is the last defense we the people have against an authoritarian judicial oligarchy run amok.

Cool! I hate rape laws. Next time I'm on a jury and it's a rape case I'll just acquit the accused because I reckon that law sucks.....

Brilliant logic....

 

[Oddball]

You can't even back up your assertions with evidence.

I have your posts to show that you're a political party man hack...What more evidence does one need?

Just as I thought.

You?....Think?

Don't make me laugh.

 

[George Costanza]

There's no "belief in the concept"...It's a legitimate point of American law and has been since the nation's founding.

Fully Informed Jury Association

It is NOT a "legitimate point of American law." Just the opposite. Judges go out of their way to make sure it does not happen. If they find that it did happen or is about to happen, a mistrial is declared. It is ILLEGAL for a juror to disregard his/her oath and render a verdict opposite to the facts of the case, merely because they might happen to disagree with the particular law of the case.

Like hell it's illegal.

If you had looked into the Kriho case as I suggested, you'd know that she was never ever charged with any wrongdoing insofar as her hanging of the jury on principle was concerned.

Refusing to convict on the basis that the laws are unjust is the last defense we the people have against an authoritarian judicial oligarchy run amok.

It depends - refusing to convict because you disagree with the law itself IS illegal. Trust me. Refusing to convict because you don't believe the prosecution's witnesses or you feel the police overstepped their bounds, even though the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant, is entirely legal. This happens all the time. (i.e., the Simpson case)

I will take a look at your Kriho case - but I'm willing to be right now it was the latter type of case, not the former.

p.s. - nullification is not the last defense we have against unjust laws. The courts can overturn them.

 

[George Costanza]

Cool! I hate rape laws. Next time I'm on a jury and it's a rape case I'll just acquit the accused because I reckon that law sucks.....

Brilliant logic....

Memo to Dude: THIS is the kind of nullification that is ILLEGAL.

 

[Oddball]

Cool! I hate rape laws. Next time I'm on a jury and it's a rape case I'll just acquit the accused because I reckon that law sucks.....

Brilliant logic....

Now, what do you think the likelihood of that happening is?....Really.

FYI, one of the reasons alcohol prohibition had to be rightly overturned is because juries were refusing to convict.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The tenth amendment grants the states the ability to nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional if it chooses to but in the absence of an opposing state law that particular federal law is still enforceable simply because the mechanism to enforce it is there. This means that all federal laws are enforceable no matter if they are unconstitutional or not but nullification provides a check against unconstitutional powers. A state law that counters a federal law nullifies that federal law when that federal law is not a law that is in pursuance of the constitution or the constitution itself.

Think of state and federal min wage laws. In some states state min wage is higher than federal and state law would be supreme in that situation because min wage laws are not one of the constitutionally delegated powers to federal government so state law kills federal law in that situation. However, a state law that attempts to regulate interstate commerce (which is trade between state borders) is inferior to federal law since the federal government has that power.

This is how nullification works. It does not have the power to nullify constitutional federal laws. It only has the power to nullify unconstitutional laws of the federal government and even then it is the state's choice to do so. The state may like those laws and choose to keep them but in those situations it is the state's choice to keep them.

I'm confused.

This thread appears to have first been about nullification of federal law by the states.

Now its about nullification of criminal law by a jury.

The two are different things.

One is unconstitutional.

The other is not.

 

[Oddball]

Cool! I hate rape laws. Next time I'm on a jury and it's a rape case I'll just acquit the accused because I reckon that law sucks.....

Brilliant logic....

Memo to Dude: THIS is the kind of nullification that is ILLEGAL.

That kind of nullification is perfectly legal...And next to impossible in its unlikelihood.

Good and just people can be trusted to make the distinction between heinous violent crime and silly "crimes" like recreational drug offenses.

 

[Oddball]

It depends - refusing to convict because you disagree with the law itself IS illegal. Trust me. Refusing to convict because you don't believe the prosecution's witnesses or you feel the police overstepped their bounds, even though the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant, is entirely legal. This happens all the time. (i.e., the Simpson case)

I will take a look at your Kriho case - but I'm willing to be right now it was the latter type of case, not the former.

p.s. - nullification is not the last defense we have against unjust laws. The courts can overturn them.

We the people overturn the bad laws, by refusing to enforce them in the jury box.

The judge's role is that of referee over legal procedure, not deciding the law.

 

[Oddball]

Care to tell the class which Article and Section that prohibition against the people is located, Joke?

The Supremacy Clause

As usual, you're full of shit.

The Constitution is a list of limited powers we the people grant our gubmint servants, not prohibitions on we ourselves.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Cool! I hate rape laws. Next time I'm on a jury and it's a rape case I'll just acquit the accused because I reckon that law sucks.....

Brilliant logic....

Memo to Dude: THIS is the kind of nullification that is ILLEGAL.

That kind of nullification is perfectly legal...And next to impossible in its unlikelihood.

Good and just people can be trusted to make the distinction between heinous violent crime and silly "crimes" like recreational drug offenses.

Not to mention it takes more than one juror to get an acquittal.

Defendants (or their attorneys) may not, however, try to pursuade the jury to nullify. And in fact, if the jury asks the judge about nullification he's free to tell them its not an option. Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia But the courts have upheld a juries de facto right to nullify.


Jury nullifcation is in fact a necessary part of our system, its supposed to be there to catch the exceptions to the law.

For instance, say that in the aftermath of hurricane katrina, I steal a bus and use it to evacuate 50 elderly nursing home patients to safety. Technically, I have violated the law. A sensible jury would not convict though, as the good clearly outweighs the bad.

 

[Oddball]

Wikipedia.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

It depends - refusing to convict because you disagree with the law itself IS illegal. Trust me. Refusing to convict because you don't believe the prosecution's witnesses or you feel the police overstepped their bounds, even though the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant, is entirely legal. This happens all the time. (i.e., the Simpson case)

I will take a look at your Kriho case - but I'm willing to be right now it was the latter type of case, not the former.

p.s. - nullification is not the last defense we have against unjust laws. The courts can overturn them.

We the people overturn the bad laws, by refusing to enforce them in the jury box.

The judge's role is that of referee over legal procedure, not deciding the law.

nope. jury decides fact, judge decides law for jury. the verdict in the emmett till murder trial was jury nullification. jury nullification can be overturned.

 

[Oddball]

Wrong again...BTW, you still haven't come up with the provision in the Constitution which proscribes your fallacious belief.

I'll give you a hint....There ain't one.